Davidson delivers best analysis of county game

"An evidence-based approach to the identification and development of England Test cricketers in the County Championship" is not the sexiest name ever given to a document, nor is it the easiest read, filled as it is with an array of statistics and data, but the 69 pages released last week by Neil Davidson, the chairman of Leicestershire, is the best-reasoned analysis of the issues facing the first-class game that I have seen. It argues that the championship is serving the England team (and, by extension, English cricket) badly and suggests a range of remedies.

It was disseminated this week to counties ahead of a series of meetings among chairmen and chief executives on the future structure of county cricket. Since Davidson is regarded as a bit of a maverick by some, since it goes against the grain of thought (particularly on the issue of Kolpak players), and since it recommends proposals likely to be unpopular, especially to some of the bigger, more influential counties, it is unlikely to get a fair hearing.

It deserves to, though, for three reasons: Davidson is a bright man with an impeccable business pedigree (since he has, on occasion, found reason to complain to the editor of this newspaper about this column, I can't be accused of pro-Davidson bias); it is, as it says on the tin, an evidence-based study, an attempt therefore to get away from views of county cricket based on "prejudice and entrenched conjecture", and it has taken a considerable amount of work.

Broadly, his analysis says this: that the route into first-class cricket for the brightest and best is inefficient and muddled; that counties play far too few English-qualified players in the crucial pre-23-year-old age bracket; that there are too many older English-qualified players blocking the path of potential Test cricketers; that overseas and Kolpak players improve the standard of county cricket and need be no impediment to producing young English talent, and that the performance-related fee payment system, by which the England and Wales Cricket Board impose financial penalties on counties who do not play nine English-qualified players, encourages counties to employ older English-qualified cricketers rather than produce young, aspiring Test cricketers.

His starting point is not England's general Test record, which has been generally good of late, but the relative lack of success in the Ashes. Davidson was in Australia this winter and recognised that Australian success is "system based" and therefore consistent, whereas England's success, certainly in recent memory, has come more by luck and happenstance (in spite of the system, you might say) and has therefore been sporadic. In Australia, the development of Test cricketers is "highly visible and focused", whereas in England the "development pathway" into first-class cricket is fragmented, unclear and inefficient.

Related Articles

The critical age-range is 17-23. With very few exceptions, players who go on to enjoy productive Test careers (50 caps or more) are playing Test cricket by the age of 25. In most cases, they will have been introduced into first-class cricket between the ages of 17-19, allowed to develop their game between the ages of 19-23 before being fast-tracked into international cricket for a lengthy period.

Yet Davidson's analysis shows that in 2006 only 15 English-qualified players under the age of 19 played in the championship, and that eight counties played none at all. Counties played on average only 1.9 English-qualified players aged 23 or under, giving the selectors a tiny pool to choose from in the age bracket from which the best Test players are produced. Counties used, on average, only 3.1 English-qualified players aged 25 or under. "As a development pipeline this is insufficient to serve the needs of the England team," he concludes.

He argues that this is because the counties are driven primarily by the need to achieve financial viability and on-field success. To achieve that, older English-qualified players are the most valuable commodity.

A player like Dominic Cork, to use a random example, fits a county's needs perfectly because he is good and he is unlikely to be selected by England again (so helping the county achieve success), and because he fulfils one of the criteria (English-qualified) by which the county will receive their performance-related fee payment in full. Self-interest dictates that it is much easier to buy such a player rather than invest that money in trying to produce a young cricketer, who might then go off and play for England and rarely be seen by the county again.

To remedy this lack of young English-qualified talent, Davidson suggests four things: showcase academies to take place throughout the summer holidays to identify school age (under-17) talent; a senior showcase academy to run concurrently (effectively a summer second XI championship) as a bridge into first-class cricket; regulation that forces counties to play a minimum of four English-qualified players under the age of 25 in every game, and a salary cap be imposed to prevent the richer clubs from distorting the development process (which I have long been in favour of).

The most contentious aspect of the report is his assertion that producing home-grown Test players and employing non-qualified England players is not mutually exclusive. Here he lays himself open to charges of self-interest, since Leicestershire have openly welcomed numerous Kolpak players. Yet, Durham's example, with their combination of home-grown England internationals alongside players of convenience, is compelling enough.

There is enough in Davidson's report to suggest that the chairmen who meet this week at Edgbaston will give it a cool reception, if one at all. It is sure to receive far less media publicity than the Schofield Report, even though it offers more thorough analysis.

How his data is interpreted is open to question: does levelling the playing field for counties level the standard down rather than up? Can you forcibly regulate the age by which players should be paying first-class cricket (a kind of Keynesian rather than free-market approach to cricket)? Do English players mature later than their Australian counterparts?

Regardless of that, Davidson's priorities are certainly in the right place. He wants to produce more and better young English cricketers; he wants county cricket to be as strong as possible and he wants the national team to do well. He has also put in a serious amount of work and for that, at least, his analysis deserves a forum.

The analysis can be downloaded on Leicestershire's website (www.leicestershireccc.co.uk). It is not for the fainthearted. You should wrap a cold towel around your head and pour yourself a stiffener before diving in.